If someone would like to contradict the conclusion of my argument I offer an invitation to do so. However, the difficulty in opposing this view is that the opposition must prove that there was a time when 1+1= not 2.

What if said laws are only the random configuration that occurred in our universe in a multiverse of every possible mathematical configuration. I don't see how their existence denotes intelligence unless you are bordering on a more pantheistic "universal intelligence" where mathematics is like the "fingerprint" of each universe and the multiverse itself is the "intelligent cause". But math came into being after the big bang, and if that is what you are using to denote intelligence how can you assume what preceded it was intelligent when the laws of the universe break down at the big bang? We know 1+1= not 2 before the big bang, therefore the reasoning you have provided doesn't logically follow.

Stephen Wolfram and other mathematicians have shown that complexity or order can occur randomly.

I see no reason for the mathematical constants of this universe to warrant a belief in an intelligent cause when their complexity could have simply solidified randomly at the beginning moments of the universe, and you're assertion that due to your own intelligent nature you can discern an intelligent cause in mathematics seems to be a covering for a possible argument from ignorance unless you really believe that science can never discover how the laws of the universe actually came about, or as I said earlier you mean some kind of pantheistic "universal intelligence" .

Yes, and here is why. After 9/11 our country went absolutely nuts. By the time we get to Iraq it's cool to preemptively invade countries in case of what they might do on the basis of what we are about to find out is forged intelligence after the British hearings conclude. We created gulags, secret prisons, used torture, and virtually tore apart the constitution all in the name of "security". The 2008 Republican National Convention looked like a damn police state where protesters were preemptively being arrested for what they MIGHT do days before and being put in pens. Footage had to be smuggled out of police actions like this as though this were China or some third world country. The American right went down right nationalistic. Even now they argue about which ideologue is christian and white enough.

The Nobel Peace prize specifically is used as a political tool at times by the European left. Obama being given this may not be about what he did, but what they feel he has the potential to do, and not to mention the many actual controversial figures who have received it.

Even so, if Obama's message and attitude during the campaign or his initial acts as president helped ratchet back the crazed fervor that still seems to infest our political system where everything, EVERYTHING, is about security and defense then he DESERVED that prize regardless of if he is a war president or not. Freight trains don't stop on a dime and neither does the bulk of the US war machine, but he did let back on the accelerator, and speaking in terms of the actions of the most powerful country in history, that made the world a more stable place. A place where a dialogue could happen once again, and that's why they gave it to him.

The celebrations that takes place in the holiday season are as old as recorded history regardless of what they are being called now. Most of the actual celebrating has nothing to do with Christianity. The current incarnation of Santa Claus was a Secular invention with roots to old Europe. Gift giving came from the Roman's Saturnalia. The Christmas tree, mistletoe toe, roasting chestnuts, family gathering, jolly drunkenness, all have nothing to do with Christianity.

Europeans were CONVERTS to Christianity. Remember that. They never threw away their older customs they just assimilated them. They assimilated them in the same way as we should assimilate those aspects of these celebrations that have meaning to us.

I think you're using a very selective definition of atheism. Atheism can refer anyone in any cultural context that doesn't believe in a god(monotheism) or gods(polytheism), of any kind. I understand we are seeped in this "western" context of christianity, but does that really mean a "self proclaimed atheist" in some other religious region is standing in direct opposition to Christianity? I don't think so. Atheist aren't making a counter claim regardless of the dichotomy of the labels. Atheism/theism concerns belief, as opposed to gnosticism/agnosticism which is an epistemological term concerning knowledge. To me, everyone is agnostic because I think no one living knows for certain if there is a god. Christians believe they are gnostic because they see the bible as evidence. Atheists have no belief in god/s due to their perceived lack of evidence. This is the default position since no claim is being made. Theism, no matter the form, makes the claim for god/s or the supernatural. Without evidence there is no reason to believe this claim, but note I did not say that it was warranted to believe that god/s cannot exist. Atheism is not a belief structure.

If the thoughts of God and religion were none existent then so to shall be the viewpoint of an Atheist.

This is the basis for atheist blowback. There isn't a word for the lack of belief in Santa Claus. Atheists are a much derided minority, especially in the south where I live. There are still states that do not allow us to serve in government openly. Minorities when threatened band together. Modern atheism is a reaction, nothing more. If theism disappears, the illusion of an atheist collective will disappear.

Then we finally realize we were all Pantheists anyway as our ideas of god merges with our ideas of the universe. I think some of the upcoming breakthroughs in quantum mechanics will pretty much assure this.

"In 1967, the landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia found that the right to marry is a "basic civil [right] of man.” Loving v Virginia ended legal discrimination in marriage."

Yes, real rights, Joe. Why do you think I keep referencing the civil rights movement?? We've been through this before. Only last time people were saying colored people couldn't marry whites for ALL the reasons people are saying now and worse.